↪Rank Amateur Here is the key flaw: the notion of a future of value does not capture what it is to be a person ("like us"). — Banno

it makes no such claim - it makes no person hood claim about the fetus at all.

It is the most popular pro life argument in existence, it is all over the internet, I have done my best to explain it. If your have some real intellectual curiosity to understand an argument that is opposed to your beliefs - sure the internet can do a better job of laying out the argument than I can. Enjoy.

Don't take me for a fool. What are "People like us" if not people? The argument revolves around personhood. The pretence that it does not is part of what makes your approach so disingenuous. — Banno

all in your mind, and a lack of a dispassionate reading and understanding of the argument. If you want to do some heaving lifting and re state for me what your understanding is of the complete arguement I will respond, but I am weary of these wack a mole arguments.

so agreed it is a fact ? The concept of future - as defined as time that has not yet happened is a fact ? We agreed that such a thing as the future is real ?? — Rank Amateur

As concept - as idea - sure. Try to get the distinction between the present reality of the idea (of a thing), and the thing itself. The "pure fact" is that you have an idea, a thought of (something). Now make clear for me, please, exactly the connection between the thought - the idea - and the thing thought of or about.

Your mission, should you accept it, is to establish the present existence of the future, in such concrete terms that the future is, and in virtue of its present existence, is in its particulars describable in concrete terms as matters of fact.

Indeed, I am passionate. What makes your argument sinful is that it pretends to show that the life of a piece of tissue is valuable without mention of the woman on whom it is parasitic. It is symptomatic of the grossly distorted view of human dignity that falls from conservative theology. Misogynistic, homophobic, nasty stuff.

re state for me what your understanding is of the complete arguement — Rank Amateur

Here's the thing; any philosophical argument of the sort you provide is apt to be wrong. If you need to present something so convoluted in order to make your point, you have gone astray. You are using philosophy to suit your own agenda.

Here's the rub: a piece of tissue is not as important as a woman.

Now this will be obvious to anyone who does not have another agenda...

Indeed, I am passionate. What makes your argument sinful is that it pretends to show that the life of a piece of tissue is valuable without mention of the woman on whom it is parasitic. It is symptomatic of the grossly distorted view of human dignity that falls from conservative theology. Misogynistic, homophobic, nasty stuff. — Banno

this is so tiresome - i have said at least 10 times and at least 5 to you - this is a second order discussion - even if the fetus is such a thing as it has a right to live. That does NOT NOT NOT mean it has a right to the use of the woman's body - different argument. And I have share the best pro choice argument for that on here, Dr. Judith Thompsons that would make YOUR case.

This thread is like groundhog day - it is like nothing that has already been said - ever happened

- i have said at least 10 times and at least 5 to you - — Rank Amateur

...and still you do not see the poverty of your reply. Indeed, it is tiresome. You seek to treat the foetus as if it were distinct from the woman. It isn't. Take it out and it is dead. And the reason you need to treat it a if it is distinct from the woman is that you wish to ascribe to it moral standing that it does not deserve.

MORALITY
morality itself - is there some level of morality that has a wide application, would be generally accepted as moral or immoral, or is all morality relative.

one must assume there is some generally accepted concept of morality to continue

IF ONE BELIEVES ALL MORALITY IS RELATIVE - STOP HERE

PERSONHOOD
The arguments about personhood are all arguments of if the biology of humans or something else give the fetus moral standing. Although often debated on forums like this - in large measure it has been abandoned in most academic and serious arguments on abortion. The reason for this is that for each criteria given there is a case where such a criteria is only used in the case of the fetus, and not used in the case of a born human. this is just a long series of begging the question.

There is one major exception. Dr. Singer continues to argue that it is not biology that makes us human, it is that we are embodied minds that make us human beings. He argues that this occurs somewhere in early childhood and as such would allow infanticide.

IF ONE BELIEVES NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE SAYS THAT A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON BECAUSE A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON - STOP HERE

FUTURE OF VALUE ARGUMENT (FOVA)
Despite the unsupported dismissals of the argument on the board. This argument is regarded almost universally by academics and serious critics both pro choice and pro life as the best argument about the morality of abortion. it is, because it is based on things that almost all believe are intuitively true, or on pure biological fact.

we do intuitively believe it is wrong to unjustly kill people like you and me
we do intuitively believe we will exist in the future and we value it. ( I have dinner reservations for next week - and keep a calendar)
It is a fact that some number of days after the process of conception there does exist a unique human organism
and it is a fact that if you leave it alone - it will exist in the future as only one thing a human like us.

this argument hinges on the concept of "Ideal desire" that it is reasonable to assume that those, who due to some handicap or circumstance are unable to overtly express their desire, would desire things that would be best for them.

The argument against this is that one must have at least some minor level of cognitive ability to be considered as meriting the concept of "ideal desire"

IF YOU BELIEVE THE CONCEPT OF IDEAL DESIRE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FETUS - STOP HERE

RIGHT TO THE USE OF THE MOTHERS BODY
Even if you believe that the fetus is a moral actor, that by itself does not de facto give it a right
to the use of the mothers body. The mother possesses bodily autonomy and she can decide to let the fetus use it, or not.

This argument hinges on the concept of implied consent. Does having sex as an act of free will with a known possible outcome being a fetus with moral standing that has a unique need for the use of your body establish an implied consent

IF YOU THINK THERE IS NO IMPLIED CONSENT - STOP HERE

That is really basically where the world is in the argument

NONE OF WHICH HAS MUCH OF ANYTHING AT ALL WITH IF ABORTION SHOULD OR
SHOULD NOT BE LEGAL.[/quote]

...and still you do not see the poverty of your reply. Indeed, it is tiresome. You seek to treat the foetus as if it were distinct from the woman. It isn't. Take it out and it is dead. And the reason you need to treat it a if it is distinct from the woman is that you wish to ascribe to it moral standing that it does not deserve. — Banno

occasionally it would be nice if someone else would actually make a full argument with premises and conclusions that we could debate other than me. All I have gotten out of you is your zealous opinion - make a full argument to support it for once.

Her moral worth gives her authority? Does this apply to other people as well? I have moral worth therefore I have authority over others?
Your argument fails until you add a distinction that the life is of no moral value.
Just playing devils advocate, I actually am on your side in this. I do not bemieve in santity of life at all.

My argument in full: A woman has far greater moral worth than a piece of tissue. — Banno

Indeed, and I agree with you. But it does seem to me you're encroaching on the territory of the old dog and the squirrel (or hare, or local rodent of choice). That is, the significance of the difference in the interest involved.

Or another way: whatever right a woman has to terminate her pregnancy, I assume that you are not arguing she has that same right up until the moment of birth.

Nothing complicated. Authority implies an ability to rule - whatever it is. Being subject to an imperative means you do not rule. A simple example comes to mind. You drive on a road that ends at a T intersection. You have authority over whether you turn left or right; you rule that. But the turn itself is an imperative, you have to turn, on that you do not rule.

Ive never heard those terms made distinct in that way before.
So how does it follow from that distinction that you have an imperative to make a choice willy nilly? Isnt what you just described as imperative precisely NOT making a choice?
For me, I bypass most of the argueing about abortion by removing the basis that life has a sacred value. Absent that, there isnt much to debate.
Not aborting on grounds of future potential of any kind seems flawed, Hitler was a baby and before that a fetus and on down the chain of personhood....his future potential we all know. That would have been a great abortion, perhaps even a morally required abortion should a person of the tume somehow seen into the future potential. Alas, no such ability exists, so its best not to base a conclusion on something no one can possibly know in my book.

So how does it follow from that distinction that you have an imperative to make a choice willy nilly? Isnt what you just described as imperative precisely NOT making a choice? — DingoJones

Well, two aspects. One is you have to turn, hence imperative. The other is that you can choose whether to turn left or right, that's within your authority.

For me, I bypass most of the arguing about abortion by removing the basis that life has a sacred value. Absent that, there isnt much to debate. — DingoJones

I assume like most people including Banno you're not so sanguine at terminating a pregnancy at 36 weeks as you might be at ten weeks. I'm assuming that the idea that life is sacred, that you abjure, is not the same as saying that life has value, which I assume you agree with.

Well, two aspects. One is you have to turn, hence imperative. The other is that you can choose whether to turn left or right, that's within your authority. — tim wood

I understand, its the inclusion of “making a choice willy nilly” in an imperative description thats getting me...what is the imperative that results in a willy nilly choice rather than a normal choice?

I assume like most people including Banno you're not so sanguine at terminating a pregnancy at 36 weeks as you might be at ten weeks. I'm assuming that the idea that life is sacred, that you abjure, is not the same as saying that life has value, which I assume you agree with. — tim wood

You assume correctly, life should be judged by its value/merit rather than its “sanctity”. For abortion, happy to let experts decide where the line is. I step on spiders, if the fetus is no more sentient than that then thats about how much I care if someone aborts it. That is, barely. Same with death penalty, as long as we are very careful about making sure the person actually did it I cant see why we would keep them alive because all life is somehow sacred.